Election petitions must provide a concise statement of material facts; omissions lead to dismissal under statutory provisions when they do not substantiate a cause of action.

ORDER :

(ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.)

1. I.A. No.2 of 2024 is filed by the original respondent in the Election Petition, seeking rejection of the election petition under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 .

2. The petitioner has filed an Election Petition seeking a declaration that the election of the Respondent to 18^th Lok Sabha Parliamentary Elections from 16- Hassan parliamentary constituency, Karnataka State, be set aside.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this election petition are as follows:

4. The petitioner is a voter of Hassan Parliamentary Constituency. Wherein, his name is enrolled in Part No.137, Govt. Higher Primary School, Malali at Serial No.272 of 197, Holenarsipura Assembly Constituency. The respondent contested the election from Hassan constituency as an official candidate of the Indian National Congress, a registered political party. The elections were announced on 16/03/2024. In the state of Karnataka, two phase elections was notified by the Election Commission of India. The result of the elections were declared on 04.06.2024, in which the respondent was declared as the elected candidate.

5. The petitioner has raised an objection about the declaration made by the Respondent in the Affidavit i.e., in Form No.26 filed along with the nomination papers by the respondent. It is contended that the respondent has not disclosed three immovable properties i.e., the property bearing Khatha No.172/162, measuring to an extent of 22.10 ft. * 33¼ ft., situated in the limits of Town Municipal Council, Holenarsipura, the land bearing Survey No. 170/2, measuring to an extent of 3 guntas situated at Udduru Hosahalli Village, and the land bearing Survey No. 35-B, measuring to an extent of 4510 sq. mtrs., situated at Doddanekundi Industrial Estate, K.R. Puram taluk, Bangalore South. The disclosure of the aforementioned properties had to be made by the respondent in column No.7(B)(ii) and 7(B)(iii) of Form No.26 affidavit. Non disclosure of the aforementioned three immovable properties in column No.7(B)(ii) and 7(B)(iii) of Form No.26 affidavit is a defect of substantial character. Thus, the nomination of the respondent ought to have been rejected and it was improperly accepted by the returning officer. In view of the improper acceptance of the nomination of the respondent, the result of the election to No.16 Hassan parliamentary constituency has been materially affected, since the respondent is a returned candidate himself. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the election of the Respondent under the provisions of section 100(1)(d)(i) and (d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 . ( for short, “the Act” or “R.P. Act”).

6. This Court issued a summons to the respondent. After the service of summons, the respondent appeared in the election petition, and filed his written statement. Additionally, the respondent has filed the present application seeking rejection of the election petition under the provisions of Order VII Rules 11(a) and (d) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 . The petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply, opposing the said application.

7. The application is called out for hearing.

8. Sri. Prabhuling Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action for questioning the election of the respondent. That when averments of the election petition are read as a whole, it is clear that the p